Smoot Nails It!!!! The Facts About Jeremy Runnels

[Damien the Leper]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, pretty much.  As a practical matter, the Church has to receive the letter, confirm it is from you, update its records, and so on.

And then there is the theoretical option of the Church completing a previously-initiated disciplinary council, notwithstanding a resignation.  Here's more information on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

When I resigned, I made 3 copies. One for Member Records, one for my bishop and one for me.

I mailed one to the church and hand delivered another copy to the bishop.

Within 2 weeks, I received confirmation of my resignation.

It's not an arduous process. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not only that..resigned members would be no show..and the Bishop would find cops at his door if he proceeded. At least that is how a resigned person would feel.

There had better not be cops at the door. Not if we're still living in the United States of America that I know and love.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Valentinus said:

When I resigned, I made 3 copies. One for Member Records, one for my bishop and one for me.

I mailed one to the church and hand delivered another copy to the bishop.

Within 2 weeks, I received confirmation of my resignation.

It's not an arduous process. 

I did not suggest otherwise.  I was responding to a remark that a resignation is effective "the minute I put the stamp on the letter."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not only that..resigned members would be no show..and the Bishop would find cops at his door if he proceeded. At least that is how a resigned person would feel.

Surely you are speaking in jest.  Right?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I did not suggest otherwise.  I was responding to a remark that a resignation is effective "the minute I put the stamp on the letter."

Thanks,

-Smac

I know. I wasn't suggesting you suggested otherwise. I just shared my experience. Thank you for your patience and willingness to explain in-depth your perspective and understanding, Smac.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There had better not be cops at the door. Not if we're still living in the United States of America that I know and love.

Who knows..if they want to hold a disciplinary council for a resigned member..with others involved..it would not be pretty.  Actually, it would be just attorney correspondence to cease contact probably.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not only that..resigned members would be no show..and the Bishop would find cops at his door if he proceeded. At least that is how a resigned person would feel.

That might be how they feel, but it is unlikely the law.  I would imagine most cops would be offended to be required to get involved as well being unavailable to do work that protects lives and property.  If someone is unhappy, sue civilly; there is nothing criminal to register a complaint about.

 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Surely you are speaking in jest.  Right?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I explained later in a reply that really it would just be an attorney involved.  But hey..it would really tick people off!!

[Calm]

Can't add to post above:

Talk about a misuse of power.  Think of it from the other side, do you think cops should show up at Runnells' door because the local leaders think he is defaming the Church by calling it a fraud?

[consiglieri]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I recall the discussion.  I am not persuaded that an audio tape is required.  For the Church's purposes, a written summary is sufficient.  And a written summary is, I think, much less susceptible to inappropriate disclosure.  This benefits both the Church and the person subject to discipline.

Since a disciplinary council is a Church meeting, the Church gets to determine how it is administered.  

Reasonable minds can disagree about this.  You raise a fair point.  I don't find it absurd or utterly wrongheaded.  But I just don't agree with it.  I think the Church's position is reasonable as well.  In such circumstances, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's cool.

I agree reasonable people can disagree about this.

If I were in charge (!), I would just want to make sure the Church looks as above-board and transparent as possible.

 

[cinepro]

As I said in the other thread, I find this who situation absolutely baffling.  Can anyone cite any other church or organization where you have detractors protesting someone getting removed from the organization? 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can't add to post above:

Talk about a misuse of power.  Think of it from the other side, do you think cops should show up at Runnells' door because the local leaders think he is defaming the Church by calling it a fraud?

Talk about entitlement mentality! Some people these days think they can call the cops about anything!

Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite YouTube videos. A woman calls the sheriff's department because a local Burger King screwed up her order. Give it a listen if you're not acquainted with it. It's hilarious!

Quote

Ma'm, we're not going to go down there and enforce your western bacon cheeseburger.

Also,
 

Quote

 

-- "You're supposed to be here to protect me."

-- "What are we protecting you from, a wrong cheeseburger?"

 

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

Listen guys...I see what Jeremy did.  Before I resigned, I pretty much knew how I felt about a lot of things..and I had asked questions and tried to find answers.  Note that I was still praying.  But I was leaning to leaving the church.  I did not want to leave without saying I had done all I could  do.  So I called the Bishop and requested that he and his counselors with the Relief Society President meet with me.  I was very close to the RS Sister and it was important to me.  I was also just released as the visiting teacher coordinator. 

They met with me..my daughter was with me and we both asked questions that were important to us.  I truly wanted them to convince me I was wrong..well, the 2nd counselor went to sleep in my recliner..my friend, the RS Pres., said she wasn't "into deep doctrine"..and my loving Bishop stood up and tried to explain and imitate the face in the hat.  No one was aware of the different visions..and other things.  I didn't know whether to laugh or cry..so I handed my paperwork to the Bishop then.  Whether I knew for sure what I would do doesn't matter..I asked the questions!  I asked for some answers and was willing to wait for those answers if needed.  As for Jeremy, I can see why asking the questions was a needed thing..you may not see that or agree.. but it is not an "in your face" moment, it is because you want to face some honest eyes and see if they can help..CES letter or not..people were finding out thing way  before all of this. 

[consiglieri]

45 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I'm good with anything that can stop either side from hiding behind the worthless excuse of "We don't know what all was said, therefore...(insert further nonsense and rationalizations)."

I have to agree with this.

In circumstances such as this, when a person who is disciplined comes out with his or her story as to what transpired in the hearing, I am going to take that at face value if the other party does not give their side of the story.

(Again one of my reasons for complete and official audio recordings.)

What I hear frequently hear, along with Valentinus, is people saying they will not give credence to one side of the story because the haven't heard the other side of the story.

This happened on a recent podcast involving so minor an issue as the Hawaii bishop who released the Sunday school teacher from his calling over his use of a Church essay in his class; and his refusal to abide by the bishop's directive to not do that any more and stick to the manual.

This story was brought up on a podcast and the teacher's position was stated, but one of the podcasters said they didn't know what to believe because the bishop hadn't given his side of the story.

The bishop may well have reasons for not giving his side of the story, but the fact is that when one side (here, the teacher) comes out with his side of the story, I don't think the leader (here the bishop) gets to control the spin of the story simply by remaining silent.

 

[Calm]

Jeanne, by his own account he was way past that point by the time he came out with the CES letter.  I am not disputing that he went through that, but that is not what has been happening the past three years or more.

It doesn't help to rewrite history in trying to solve the problems of how to interact with people, not when it is done by church leaders, well meaning people, or people hiding their agendas or anyone else.

[consiglieri]

One of the main issues I have with disciplinary hearings for apostasy is that it seems from what I have heard (from those who have attended) that it is not a hearing at all.

At least, not a hearing to investigate charges and bring forth evidence and allow the accused the ability to meet that evidence in any serious way.

Instead, the accused is summoned in, usually not knowing anything about the specifics of the charges against him; i.e., what is it that was written or said that the Church finds offensive and why.

It is only at the hearing itself that the accused is told the specifics of the allegations, and then is expected to mount a defense at the hearing itself.

I think such hearings would comport more with due process if the letter summonsing the person to the disciplinary hearing contained any and all specific allegations together with their source; then allowed the accused to respond in writing prior to the hearing.

I also think it would be beneficial to follow the D&C procedure of having 6 of the high council be appointed to represent the accused.

Too often, what I hear is that nobody is appointed to represent the accused, and often the members of the high council don't even know about the specifics of the charges until they are present for the hearing.

The stake president makes the call as to what should be done, and then everybody else "is privileged to sustain" his decision.

The result is that the impression given is that the decision on discipline has been made before the hearing, and the hearing is the vehicle by which the decision is announced.

I will note that a refreshing change to this occurred recently with somebody who appeared on Mormon Stories to announce that his discipline hearing resulted in no discipline.

 

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Listen guys...I see what Jeremy did.  Before I resigned, I pretty much knew how I felt about a lot of things..and I had asked questions and tried to find answers.  Note that I was still praying.  But I was leaning to leaving the church.  I did not want to leave without saying I had done all I could  do.  So I called the Bishop and requested that he and his counselors with the Relief Society President meet with me.  I was very close to the RS Sister and it was important to me.  I was also just released as the visiting teacher coordinator. 

They met with me..my daughter was with me and we both asked questions that were important to us.  I truly wanted them to convince me I was wrong..well, the 2nd counselor went to sleep in my recliner..my friend, the RS Pres., said she wasn't "into deep doctrine"..and my loving Bishop stood up and tried to explain and imitate the face in the hat.  No one was aware of the different visions..and other things.  I didn't know whether to laugh or cry..so I handed my paperwork to the Bishop then.  Whether I knew for sure what I would do doesn't matter..I asked the questions!  I asked for some answers and was willing to wait for those answers if needed.  As for Jeremy, I can see why asking the questions was a needed thing..you may not see that or agree.. but it is not an "in your face" moment, it is because you want to face some honest eyes and see if they can help..CES letter or not..people were finding out thing way  before all of this. 

That's why I love this board.  There are members that know the facts and won't insinuate we're being influenced by Satan by believing anti Mormon material.  I remember reading or seeing a couple in a Youtube, can't remember, that told someone of their findings, in their ward or neighbors, can't recall this was a few years back, and the people looked as if they'd seen a ghost.  Literally said they were of the devil, and didn't want them in their house.  And it was over things that are now in the church essays, I believe.

My own sister feels Satan might have of hold me.  She doesn't care to look at the essays or any issues, she just knows the church is true, and nothing will take that away.  I use to be just like her too.  Maybe Satan did get to me.  

Edited February 15, 2016 by Tacenda

[Calm]

They are not called disciplinary hearings (no hits for that on lds.org), but disciplinary councils.

Assuming they resemble in any way legal proceedings will lead to faulty conclusions about their purpose and procedures, imo.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Who knows..if they want to hold a disciplinary council for a resigned member..with others involved..it would not be pretty.  Actually, it would be just attorney correspondence to cease contact probably.

Do you think it would be appropriate for a lawyer to show up at Runnells' door with a writ or whatever it is called to cease and desist contact with the Church (as in not allowing him to enter church owned buildings or attend any church functions)?

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Assuming they resemble in any way legal proceedings will lead to faulty conclusions about their purpose and procedures, imo.

I disagree. 

The Doctrine and Covenants sets forth a procedure that is in many ways similar to legal proceedings, including the right to appeal.

This is presumably because the God who revealed the D&C is the same God who said the U.S. Constitution is an inspired document.

 

Quote

 

D&C 102

 12 Whenever a high council of the church of Christ is regularly organized, according to the foregoing pattern, it shall be the duty of the twelve councilors to cast lots by numbers, and thereby ascertain who of the twelve shall speak first, commencing with number one and so in succession to number twelve.

 13 Whenever this council convenes to act upon any case, the twelve councilors shall consider whether it is a difficult one or not; if it is not, two only of the councilors shall speak upon it, according to the form above written.

 14 But if it is thought to be difficult, four shall be appointed; and if more difficult, six; but in no case shall more than six be appointed to speak.

 15 The accused, in all cases, has a right to one-half of the council, to prevent insult or injustice.

 16 And the councilors appointed to speak before the council are to present the case, after the evidence is examined, in its true light before the council; and every man is to speak according to equity and justice.

 17 Those councilors who draw even numbers, that is, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are the individuals who are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice.

 18 In all cases the accuser and the accused shall have a privilege of speaking for themselves before the council, after the evidences are heard and the councilors who are appointed to speak on the case have finished their remarks.

 19 After the evidences are heard, the councilors, accuser and accused have spoken, the president shall give a decision according to the understanding which he shall have of the case, and call upon the twelve councilors to sanction the same by their vote.

 20 But should the remaining councilors, who have not spoken, or any one of them, after hearing the evidences and pleadings impartially, discover an error in the decision of the president, they can manifest it, and the case shall have a re-hearing.

 21 And if, after a careful re-hearing, any additional light is shown upon the case, the decision shall be altered accordingly.

 22 But in case no additional light is given, the first decision shall stand, the majority of the council having power to determine the same.

 23 In case of difficulty respecting doctrine or principle, if there is not a sufficiency written to make the case clear to the minds of the council, the president may inquire and obtain the mind of the Lord by revelation.

 24 The high priests, when abroad, have power to call and organize a council after the manner of the foregoing, to settle difficulties, when the parties or either of them shall request it.

 25 And the said council of high priests shall have power to appoint one of their own number to preside over such council for the time being.

 26 It shall be the duty of said council to transmit, immediately, a copy of their proceedings, with a full statement of the testimony accompanying their decision, to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church.

 27 Should the parties or either of them be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made.

 28 This council of high priests abroad is only to be called on the most difficult cases of church matters; and no common or ordinary case is to be sufficient to call such council.

 29 The traveling or located high priests abroad have power to say whether it is necessary to call such a council or not.

 30 There is a distinction between the high council or traveling high priests abroad, and the traveling high council composed of the twelve apostles, in their decisions.

 31 From the decision of the former there can be an appeal; but from the decision of the latter there cannot.

 32 The latter can only be called in question by the general authorities of the church in case of transgression.

 33 Resolved: that the president or presidents of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church shall have power to determine whether any such case, as may be appealed, is justly entitled to a re-hearing, after examining the appeal and the evidences and statements accompanying it.

 34 The twelve councilors then proceeded to cast lots or ballot, to ascertain who should speak first, and the following was the result, namely: 1, Oliver Cowdery; 2, Joseph Coe; 3, Samuel H. Smith; 4, Luke Johnson; 5, John S. Carter; 6, Sylvester Smith; 7, John Johnson; 8, Orson Hyde; 9, Jared Carter; 10, Joseph Smith, Sen.; 11, John Smith; 12, Martin Harris.After prayer the conference adjourned.

 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you think it would be appropriate for a lawyer to show up at Runnells' door with a writ or whatever it is called to cease and desist contact with the Church (as in not allowing him to enter church owned buildings or attend any church functions)?

A lawyer has no authority to compel a bishop or stake president to do or not do something pertaining to his ecclesiastical duties.  He would need a court order.  And the courts also have no authority to prohibit a religious meeting such as a disciplinary council.  This is called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine."  While this doctrine varies a bit from state to state, tt essentially provides: "The First Amendment will protect and shield the religious body from liability for the activities carried on pursuant to the exercise of church discipline. Within the context of ecclesiastical discipline, churches enjoy an absolute privilege from scrutiny by the secular authority."  

It also provides that "the church privilege extends in this case to activities or communications which occurred after excommunication if these may be termed as mere implementation of previously pronounced ecclesiastical sanction which was valid when exercised — i.e., that it was declared when Church jurisdiction subsisted."

It also provides that "Within the concept of protected implementation are not only the religious disciplinary proceeding's merits and procedure but also its end product — the expulsion sanction."

It also provides that "while excommunication would put an end to jurisdiction over any further offense, it does not abrogate the consequences flowing from the previously announced Church judicature."

It also provides: "Sovereign only within her own domain, the church has no power over those who live outside of the spiritual community. The church may not be forced to tolerate as a member one whom it feels obliged to expel from its flock. On the other hand, no citizen of the state may be compelled to remain in a church which his conscience impels him to leave."

It also provides: "The Free Exercise Clause prohibits civil courts from inquiring into any phase of ecclesiastical decisionmaking — its merits as well as procedure."

It also provides: "In sum, if a matter lies within ecclesiastical cognizance, the church stands protected from any interference by the Free Exercise Clause. If it oversteps proper bounds, it will run afoul of the Establishment Clause insofar as its use of the state power may be in furtherance of a religious cause. As stated in Prince v. Commonwealth, '... religious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be free — as nearly absolutely free as anything can be.'"

It also provides: "At the point when the church-member relationship is severed through an affirmative act either of a parishioner's withdrawal or of excommunication by the ecclesiastical body, a different situation arises. In the event of withdrawal or of post-excommunication activity unrelated to the church's efforts at effectuation of valid judicature, the absolute privilege from tort liability no longer attaches."

It also provides: "Any action at this point, if it is to be protected, must be justified by others means. Under these circumstances conditional privileges may be applicable. The church may take such steps as are reasonable to protect itself and to complete the process occasioned by the withdrawal or other termination of the consensual relationship with a member."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you think it would be appropriate for a lawyer to show up at Runnells' door with a writ or whatever it is called to cease and desist contact with the Church (as in not allowing him to enter church owned buildings or attend any church functions)?

I recall Quinn had three men in suits show up on his doorstep.  Maybe they had papers I don't know, I need to read more about it.  Of course we know they are not police but elders of the church.  http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/11/d_michael_quinn_and_mormon_excommunication_the_complicated_life_of_a_mormon.html

Edited February 15, 2016 by Tacenda

[Damien the Leper]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I disagree. 

The Doctrine and Covenants sets forth a procedure that is in many ways similar to legal proceedings, including the right to appeal.

This is presumably because the God who revealed the D&C is the same God who said the U.S. Constitution is an inspired document.

 

 

I despise propaganda such as this...

 

[Damien the Leper]

The Treaty of Tripoli is wonderful.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

--John Adams

 

 

[Jeanne]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That's why I love this board.  There are members that know the facts and won't insinuate we're being influenced by Satan by believing anti Mormon material.  I remember reading or seeing a couple in a Youtube, can't remember, that told someone of their findings, in their ward or neighbors, can't recall this was a few years back, and the people looked as if they'd seen a ghost.  Literally said they were of the devil, and didn't want them in their house.  And it was over things that are now in the church essays, I believe.

My own sister feels Satan might have of hold me.  She doesn't care to look at the essays or any issues, she just knows the church is true, and nothing will take that away.  I use to be just like her too.  Maybe Satan did get to me.  

Tacenda, in my view, Satan is just a crutch for people to blame. You can learn and think for yourself..what you do with that is what makes the difference.  Nothing to do with Satan..and you are so far out from Satan!